8.  The applicant, Mrs Ayşenur Zarakolu, was a Turkish national and lived in Istanbul. She was represented before the Court by Mr Özcan Kılıç, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.
9.  On 25 April 2002 the Court was informed of Mrs Zarakolu's death on 28 January 2002 and that Mr Ragıp Zarakolu, her widower, wanted the proceedings to continue and wished to participate in them, retaining the applicant's lawyer as his representative.
10.  For practical reasons, Mrs Zarakolu will continue to be called “the applicant”, although Mr Zarakolu is now to be regarded as such (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-VI and see also Ahmet Sadık v. Greece, judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, p. 1641, § 3).
11. The applicant was the owner of a publishing company, Belge Uluslararası Yayıncılık, in Istanbul.
12.  In November 1996 the applicant's company published a book entitled Dersim Tertelesi (Dersim Uprising), written by Haydar Işık. The book is a novel of 240 pages, telling the story of the public upheavals at the end of the 1930s in Dersim (the Kurdish name for Tunceli).
13.  On 22 January 1997 the principal public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court lodged an application with the court requesting an order for the seizure of the book.
14.  On 23 January 1997 the 6th Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court, sitting with a single civilian judge, ordered the seizure of the book in accordance with Article 28 of the Constitution, Article 86 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 2 § 1 of the Press Act no. 5680. The court considered that the novel, at certain pages and taken as a whole, contained separatist propaganda against the integrity of the State.
15.  On 29 January 1997 the applicant filed an objection with the Istanbul State Security Court against its order of 23 January 1997. She pleaded that the novel as a whole, including the pages impugned by the public prosecutor, did not contain any element of separatist propaganda. She further stated that the court's order lacked reasons and merely repeated the request of the public prosecutor. She maintained that in publishing the novel she aimed at enjoying her right to express ideas and impart information to the public. She also contended that the court's order for the seizure of the novel contravened Articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Convention. She finally asked the court to set aside the seizure order of 23 January 1997.
16.  On 6 February 1997 the 1st Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court, sitting with three full members including a military member, dismissed the applicant's objection and upheld the order for the seizure of the novel.
17.  In the meantime, on 25 April 1997 the principal public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with the court charging the applicant and the author of the novel with disseminating separatist propaganda. The public prosecutor alleged that in the book the Tunceli province was defined as “Kurdistan” and that a distinction was made between Turks and Kurds. He requested the court to punish the applicant in accordance with Article 8 § 3 of Law no. 3713 (Prevention of Terrorism Act) and to order the confiscation of the incriminated novel.
18.  In the proceedings before the 5th Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court the applicant denied the charges against her. She pleaded that the incriminated novel did not contain any separatist propaganda against the integrity of the State.
19.  On 25 September 1997 the Istanbul State Security Court postponed the criminal proceedings against the applicant pursuant to Article 1 § 3 of Law no. 4304 of 14 July 1997. The court also decided, under Article 2 of the same Law, that the criminal proceedings would be set aside provided that the applicant did not intentionally commit any offence in her capacity as an editor within three years of this decision.
20.  On 27 November 1997 the applicant appealed against the Istanbul State Security Court's decision of 25 September 1997.
21.  On 22 March 1999 the 9th Chamber of the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal.